Re: [xml-dev] Not using mixed content? Then don't use XML

[Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

On 3/25/13 11:22 AM, James Fuller wrote:

Simon sez'

Those who won't acknowledge that they are sick rarely respond well
to a diagnosis.  Those who make their livings from the continuation
of the illness - well, that's even more complicated, and a key
part of the problem we've built.

Sorry Simon, this statement doesn't float for me (perhaps I am very
ill) ... just because XML went through a gigantic hype curve and got
to the other side, doesn't mean it is 'sick' or 'ill'.

It's not about the hype curve.  It's about a different kind of epidemiology, in which we "XML folk" are the carriers of a particularly nasty virus.  "Waterfall development" is now recognized as a curse in most other cultures, but not so much here.  Even when developers work without schemas, so many of our tools expect them that they also carry the virus.Simon, I know you like to provoke, but even for you that's nonsense.  I've worked with XML some 15 years now and have never had the need to touch a schema and nor have any of the tools I've used required it.  XML is agile as you want it to be; that fact that it is attached to a lot of legacy / enterprise type projects where "waterfall development" is common does not make for a correlation between XML and "waterfall".

Simon, I know you like to provoke, but even for you that's nonsense.  I've worked with XML some 15 years now and have never had the need to touch a schema and nor have any of the tools I've used required it.  XML is agile as you want it to be; that fact that it is attached to a lot of legacy / enterprise type projects where "waterfall development" is common does not make for a correlation between XML and "waterfall".

Peter Hunsberger